»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Honour and Religion
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Honour and Religion |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What do you feel most betokens honour from religion and religion from honour? Is one more private/personal, one more social? More important? Does one come above or before the other? I was just curious on how you might characterize them in your own feeling... Essorant [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-08-2003 03:07 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
Religion is a business organized around the pretense that it isn't. The primary product of a religion is some set of externally imposed moralistically structured behavioral controls; commonly present is a codex on acceptable and unacceptable behavior (with linked post life rewards and punishments)based on the premise that humans are inherently flawed and need to be told what is right and what is wrong. Religion places ultimate control over a human life in the hands of an external, supernatural, mysterious being who decides what is best for each and all. Honor either is understood by an adult through internal awareness of right and wrong; or, it is not understood at all. With an understanding of honor, responsibility for an individual's behavior remains with the individual. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Icebox: So … religion misrepresents past or present facts with intent to defraud? That’s a pretty serious charge, don’t ya think? Do you plan to back it up, or do you expect us to accept it a priori? Or maybe you’d didn’t intend to openly accuse all organized religion of defrauding its practitioners?  You didn’t give me much to work with here, but unless I missed some cues, this sounds like existential humanism to me. Didn’t Humanists invent the idea that it is the people’s duty to promote human welfare … the so-called “public good” standard? Isn’t this type of standard a set of “externally imposed moralistic structured behavioral controls?” Doesn’t any moral standard, regardless of origin, draw a line between right and wrong and presuppose that humans, inherently, need to be told what to do? How is internal self-realization any less mysterious (or less rigid) than belief that moral standards are a product of divine revelation? Can't Humanistic thought be used as a means to justify harming one or the few if that harm is deemed to be in the public interest? Doesn't that provide to the few in the position of making such a determination the means of escaping accountability for their actions? Surely, self-interest can be a terrible, destructive thing. Self-interest, however, is a human trait and the finger can be leveled at the atheistic Marxist Humanist as much as it can be at religion. Essorant: I think, practically speaking, both are largely social. Both honor and religious holiness can be worn on the sleeve and both can be practiced with humility. I guess both can also be so engrained into the way we think and act that we think nothing of it most of the time (e.g., common courtesies such saying “thank you,” holding a door for someone behind you, saying “amen” at the end of a prayer, accepting a hand-shake, etc.). I think most of us, religious or not, do the “honorable” thing out of either a fear of punishment or out of a desire to be recognized for the “honorable” thing we do. And I’d put money on it that, most often, what drives both are social, rather than eternal, consequences for “honorable/holy” behavior. Jim |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
I don't even connect the two, and fail to see how one requires the existence of the other. They stand independently to my mind. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Not really sure the question as worded is actually what you mean Essorant. Is your question what defines the difference between honor and religion? If that is the question then I'm inclined to agree somewhat with Midnite -- apples and oranges -- different things that can go together well. Religion is far to general in scope to try to say whether or not it is personal or public -- as many religions are very different. Perhaps the thread could benefit from more of your input to further illustrate what's on your mind. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I think religion usually gives a framework in which certain things can be explained. Honor (and it's opposite- disgrace) is one of those things we all experience in life. And one would naturally ask "why?" What is honor? How can it be explained? Is there really such a thing as honor (in a transcendent way), or is merely an imposed value? Is our honor dependent upon the majority's opinion, or is there something larger than society by which to judge what is honorable? I can't answer for other religions, though I think that most attempt to explain honor in some transcendent framework. From the Christian perspective, honor is a contingent attribute. God is wholly good and honorable above all things. Because we were created in his image, we retain honor and dignity from him. But through sin and failure, honor is diminished. Biblically, honor seems to be connected with uprightness, good character, and doing what is right. So there immediately is a sense of differing kinds of honor. There is the honor of "this world". For example, riches and fame can bring honor to even immoral people. Temportal success and charisma instantly bring a kind of honor. But there is also a spiritual kind of honor given by God. So the Christian view identifies different kinds of honor with different things. But the most important kinds of honor flow from a right relationship with God and with other people. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-11-2003 09:24 PM).] |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
jbouder ~ "So … religion misrepresents past or present facts with intent to defraud? " Yes, and mostly with intent. "Do you plan to back it up, or do you expect us to accept it a priori?" No, nor do I expect anything; I do not care what you accept or deny. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. "How is internal self-realization any less mysterious ..." Self-realization, by definition, can only be internal. Also, I can not link self-realization in any way with the mysterious; I am not sure why that link would be attempted.. Further, you are challenging me to defend humanism, atheism and Marxism; I did not raise any of those issues, nor make any statement about what you call the "public good.," nor did I make any claim to holding any of those beliefs. I will re-state more simply what I said. Religion is a business. Honor is not. They are not related. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Icebox: I guess I just don't see why acting with religiosity cannot be, at the same time, acting honorably. Why can't businesses work their trade honorably? If a business can, why would religious business be disqualified? Maybe I'm missing something, but I see no reason why an action, when it is religiously motivated, cannot be construed as being honorable. Seems unnecessarily discriminatory to me. My bad on the atheist Marxist thing. You are obviously approaching this from some philosophical bias (as we all do), and I was simply trying to figure out where you were coming from. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim: "So … religion misrepresents past or present facts with intent to defraud?" Icebox: "Yes, and mostly with intent." Jim: "Do you plan to back it up, or do you expect us to accept it a priori?" Icebox: "No, nor do I expect anything; I do not care what you accept or deny. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Your ad hominem attack of "religion" doesn't really work unless you can show that all worshippers of God have been cheaters and defrauders in history. That's just not true. Much good, mercy, kindess, and alleivance of suffering has been done in the name of piety. Your view of history seems to be prejudiced. I admit great wrongs have been done by "religious" people, but you can't blackball everyone who believes in something higher than physical reality, just because the religious have sinned. "Self-realization, by definition, can only be internal. Also, I can not link self-realization in any way with the mysterious; I am not sure why that link would be attempted.. " I don't know if this is what Jim was getting at or not... but I see that Self-realization which holds any concept of "good", "moral", or "honorable", must be mysterious in a sense. Because with any of these standards, there is a value system and a judgement of what is good or bad. In wanting to believe that things are really good or bad, honorable or dishonorable, we are forced to look for universals, or either claim that we are it. Just take a look at most beliefs and philosophies which stress internal fulfillment. Theses tend toward mysticism and the "New Age". . . even the conclusion that each individual is "God". This is not unreasonable if we each arbitrarily determine our own values. The others, going toward a non-mystical approach, still find themselves embedded in mystery. For they continue to stress that things matter, and that their own standards are important (as in judging ethics), but are at a loss to explain what basis there is for thinking such a thing. There is no conceivable foundation for even their strongest convictions. At any rate, it's interesting why there is so much leaning towards mysticism (even in the non-relgious world) ... and I see very well why that link would be attempted. When deity is rejected, it's not strange that something gets venerated in it's place. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-13-2003 09:05 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm guessing here but I think this has to do with Neitzche's idea of Greek heroics and Christian 'slave mentality'. Icebox said: quote: Actually, it never can. Recognition of self-realization is internal, but the realization of self can only be done externally. Otherwise, nothing is actualized. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"I'm guessing here but I think this has to do with Neitzche's idea of Greek heroics and Christian 'slave mentality'." Brad, Could you expound on what you mean. I'm not sure what you meant by the word "this" ... what are you referring to? thanks, Stephen. |
||
|
daniel_martin Junior Member
since 2003-06-15
Posts 30london |
i wasn't aware that religion and honour were intertwined. is there an honour in the zen buddhist, or the daoist sage? if there is, then we would have to take honour as something far different from the conception i have of it, e.g. the knights of the round table, or the noble samurai who tries not to disgrace his master or family name. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
That seems a very narrow definition Daniel. One could also say honor is only the privelege of playing first at the tee -- and if a religion has nothing to do with golf then there is no honor in it. |
||
|
daniel_martin Junior Member
since 2003-06-15
Posts 30london |
ah, honour as in being honoured. so people feel honoured in joining a religion? again, i don't believe the eastern sage would claim to be honoured when having discovered the dao |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
A visit to the dictionary is likely to be in order. |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
I do not remember anyone asking about "the eastern sage" |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: And would that stop others from honoring the eastern sage for making his discovery? Or feeling honored about being associated with the sage? It seems the answer to Essorant's question depends on our being in agreement as to the meaning of the terms we're throwing around. Before we do this, the discussion will go nowhere. Jim |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Honor; (from dictionary.com) quote: The most likely applications between honor and religion being that of integrity, high respect, office. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I am mostly confused; butI tend to feel while one's religion platforms, describes, contemplates beliefs, it is true honour that will uphold them in one's own breast and behavior. Honour is bounty, religion is belief. Isn't it in the passions of an honour that one takes the quest of religion and keeps that quest and finds and shares a glory in that? Without honour what is religion? It is unanimate, and vacant, a hollow business. Without honour there is little steadfast sense and conveyence of morals and duties and statliness in life. Honour seems an inner government that ultimatly determines the stability of all other governments. If there is little honour in society, how can there be stability and solace at the same time? So perhaps instead of attending religion, we should be attending honour more, and we will naturally be more present to religion when we are more faithful to honour!?? [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-17-2003 03:13 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Both honor and religion are quicksilver, as easily redefined by times and the individual as ever defined by an English dictionary. Who had more honor, the Greeks or the Trojans, the Montagues or the Capulets, the Hatfields or the McCoys? Who had more religion, Pope Urban II and the Crusaders he spiritually led, or the Seljuk Turks they slaughtered? Those who would kill can find justification in honor, in religion, in patriotism, or in the changing of the month, all with pretty much the same facility. Those with true honor OR with true religion need not ascribe their actions to either, but find their justification in the doing. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'd be willing to stipulate the above Ron. But, I think after Essorant's last post I finally understand the intent of the original question. Better worded it is "Which is more important, a code of ethics or a creed?" Choosing to focus on the ethical code Essorant has been tried -- and actually turned into religions. Jainism and Confucionism both come to mind. They are deity -free religions that began as ethical codes and evolved into systems of faith. You may want to look into them for further study. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't think it needs to bring many of the definitions of honour or religion together in order to find a most valueable, most noble, and most certain sense about either. The senses are wide-couth. Time has ammended honour and religion relative to realizations, and inculked them thoroughstitch, to a point whereas, I believe, it is very perverse of our culture that we very much treat honour and religion like terms and things needless, oldfangled, toyish. So known, yet less shown. They almost seem now more abstract and literary than lived nowadays. But how are manners bettering, and is life very stately and noble now that we more follow our appetites at large? If people don't need religion and honour, for all our intellegence, why is the human world so perverse and shameless? Where do we go from here? If honour and religion aren't the present or at least ways to moral answers and moralfastness, what else is there to put faith in, realize upon, or act by as higher sense? [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-19-2003 01:55 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
